How good can a bad player ever be?

[Chomp]

It's going to be somewhat obvious - and somewhat embarrassing - that I am probably talking about myself here, but that's only kinda true, honest...

How good can a "bad" player ever be? Or, maybe "limited" player would be a better way of putting it.

For the sakes of argument, let's assume this player has no tilt issues, bankroll issues, gambling issues or other (semi-)extraneous problems like that. Let's also assume he has infinite commitment and desire to learn, so application isn't a problem. (Clearly, these are enormous assumptions, but let's make them anyway).

So this just leaves the issue of this player's dry technical ability to win money.

And how "limited" is this player? Well, he's not a drooler, it's just he doesn't feel the game in his bones. Everything he learns about the game and does at the table is a form of acting by rote: "I bet/bet/bet a set here", "I 3b my KK here", "my coach told me overs in a 3b pot are the nuts, so I'm going with my hand", "My outs give me 20% equity, I don't have the price, I fold".

But none of this is creative. None of it is instinctive...in fact, it may not be much more than knowing how to play 10 different types of hands/situations, and keeping your head down the rest of the time.

Now, of course one could say that I have just described an extremely good player: knowing when and how to do these simple things well is precisely the point of poker.

But my point is, absent of any further creativity, how good can this guy ever be? Is 400NL impossible? Is a wr of say 5ptbb/100 at 100NL as good as it gets?

I suppose another way of putting this is if you give the best coach in the world to the most willing and temperate, but least-talented, player in the world - where are they in a year's time?